Re-send a pending invitation email to the invitee and reset its status to Pending. Requires the invite_id (discover it via list of pending invites). The organization is fixed by your context — never pass an organization id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invite_id | Yes | Id of the pending invitation to resend. | |
| idempotency_key | No | Optional caller-supplied key; retrying with the same key returns the original result instead of acting twice. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description covers action and effect (resends email, resets status). Mentions organizational context constraint. Lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but is not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: first states purpose and effect, second provides usage instructions. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters and no output schema, description covers core functionality, input requirement, and key constraint. Could mention success/failure indication or error handling, but overall sufficient for a simple mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds meaning by specifying invite_id as pending invitation and explaining idempotency_key's retry behavior. Also warns about not passing organization id, adding value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Re-send' and resource 'pending invitation email', explicitly stating the effect 'reset its status to Pending'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like cancel_invite and invite_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States requirement for invite_id and instructs to discover it via list of pending invites. Explicitly warns against passing an organization id. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but provides clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_time_report and log_time both create a single time entry with near-identical descriptions. There are also many similar getter/list tools that blur together, making it hard for an agent to select the right one.
Most tool names use snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent: 'list' vs 'get' for similar operations, 'manage' combines create/update/delete, and 'use_favorite' is an outlier. This pattern reduces predictability.
With 114 tools, the set is extremely large and far beyond a well-scoped server (typical 3-15). This overwhelms agents and suggests many tools could be consolidated or removed.
The tool surface covers a broad domain including customers, projects, tasks, time tracking, invoicing, and user management, but there are gaps like no list_users or direct user listing, and some operations seem redundant rather than filling missing functionality.